Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-07-27

| liB ikuii. Cilc dlsO purCudbtu tlc III
terest of devisee Vicente Machado,
January 9th, 1867.
! The personal property Of said dece'
dent was more than sufficient to pay
the debts and costs of the administers
tion of the estate; therefore there was
no sale of any of the real estate in the
Icourse of the administration of sale
testate. The executors filed their fina
account in the Probate Court, which
was approved and settled ON the 2Sth
of April, 1868.
| On the 29th day of July, 1871
Dolores Machado and Francisco
Machado, two,of the heirs and devisees
in said will, and executors thereof
filed an action in the District Court Of
said county against the remaing heirs
and devisees for the partition of the
real estate devised as aforesaid. All
!. of the defendants appeared and
answered
The Court had jurisdiction of the
subject matter and of the parties. A
final decree was rendered and entered
on record in said action, whereby the
land in question was set apart in sew
crafty as the property of one OF said
devisees, to wit. Ramona Sepulveda
Machado. This decree is in full force
and effect, without any modification,
unreversed, and no appeal was taken
therefrom. 1t bears date August 81 (,
1871.
On the 2Sth of June, 1888, a petition
was filed in the Probate Court of Los
Angeles county by Francisco Machado
and Dolores Machado as executors OF
the said will of said Augustln Macha-
do, praying to have the residue, to-
wit, the real estate of said decedent,
distributed; and that as the Judge of
said Court was related to the inter-
ested parties in the second degree of
consanguinity, that the said proceed
ings be transferred to the Probate
Court of the county of San Bernar-
dino, which transfer was made by said
Judege on the 2Sth of June, 1878, at
which time all of said devisees were
of age and all living, except Martina
Machado, the estate of whom was
then being administered upon in said
county of San Bernardino. On the
2Sth of August, 1873, the Probate
Judge of said county of San Bernar-
dino signed decree whereby it was
adiudged and decreed, "That the acts
and proceedings of said executors as
appearing upon the record thereof be
and the same are hereby approved
and confirmed" and that the residue
of said estatey to-wit, the real estate
thereof, be distributed according to
the terms of the said will, that to the
said Emma Sepulveda Machado be
distributed one-half of said real estate
and to each of the remaining devisees
one-six teenth of the whole thereof.
The object in procuring an order of
distribution by the Probate Court, af-
ter the decree of partition had been
made by the District Court, was un-
doubtedly to bring the proceedings
within the purview of the Probate act,
which reads as follows
"Sec. 1865. Upon the final settle
ment of the accounts of the executor
or administrator, or of any heir, lega-
tee or devisee, the court must proceed
to distribute the residue of the estate
in the hands of the executor or admin
istrator, if any, among the persons
| who by law are entitled there o." etc.
"Sec. 1866. In the order OF decree,
the court must name the persons and
the proportions or parts to which each
shall be entitled and such persons may
demand, sue for and recover their re-
spective shares from the executor or
administrator, or any person having
the same in possession. Such order
or decree is conlusive as to the rights
of heirs, legatees or devisees, or modi-
fed on appeal"
Sec. 1915 to 1886 inclusive, of the
Probate act, provide how partition or
distribution may be made. The con-
stitutionality of this act in regard to
the partitions of real estate, may be
questioned. But there can be no
question as to the jurisdiction of the
District Court over the estate of de-
ceased persons does not divest the
District Courts (now Superior Courts)
OF the general jurisdiction. Deck VS..
Gerke, Adm. Cal. 433.
Now, in the matter of the estate of
Agustin Machado, the order of dis
tribution was made by the Probate
Court, but subsequent to the decree of
partition in the District Court. The
order of distribution was in accord
ance with the provisions of the will
and the decree of partition, and
whether made subsequent or prior to
the parties appeared in the action of
partition-the minors appearing by
their guardian. Guardians of infant
parties in actions of partition may con-
sent to the judgment. San Fernando
H. Ass. VS.. Porter, So Cal. 81. At the
date of the order of distribution all the
devisees were of age.
Actions for the possession of real
estate are barred by five years uninter-
rupted possession in this State; and
this applies to suits in chancery as
well as actions at law.
The decree of partition gave to Ra-
mona Sepulveda Machado, widow of
the decedent, the land in question,
which was conveyed by her to Dc
mingo Rivera and Ambrasio Vignolo,
October 5th, 1876, together with other
portions of the old vineyard, by other
devisees in the same deed.
The land in question was sold for
taxes to one Thomas Greenwood,
March 13, 1878, and on the 10th of
said month Greenwood conveyed to
said Rivera and Vignolo.
On the Goth of March, 1874, the
Legislature amended the charter of
tie city of Los Angeles, giving said
city lin section ~ power to sell any or
all the property belonging to the COR
poration. Until this day / find no
power vested in the city to sell all the
lands thereto belonging. This section
was amended April l, 1876, 50 as to
read as follows:
The said corporation, through its Of
ficers and agents as hereinafter pro-
vided, or as may be provided by the
ordinances, bylaws, rules, orders and
regulations passed and adopted in pur-
suance thereof, shall have the further
power, and is hereby a thorized, sub
ject to the restrictions. provisions and